What is the logic behind a magazine restriction?

State laws can not be viewed in a vacumn. Unless UBC's are national you can not look at their effectiveness. Very easy to be from LA and drive to vegas to get a gun.

- - - Updated - - -

Some minor inconveinence does not stand in the way of your right to bear arms.

 

If it's very easy to drive to LA to get a gun, illegally, then why is there a requirement that all transfers new and used have a background check, fall on the approved list, and be registered with the state? Clearly, only the lawful citizens will follow these laws. If they make no difference to the criminals, then they're only there to make lawful gun ownership more onerous and unattractive. In Colorado, when the Democrats enacted our "universal" background check, they included a section that required all members of a trust to pass a background check when any member of the trust added a firearm to the trust. Since criminals are very unlikely to sign up to have their name permanently linked to a firearm serial number in a legal document, that provision could only be aimed at law abiding citizens.

Of course it doesn't. That's the point. They do it to discourage lawful gun ownership. A significant portion of the anti's don't want anyone owning guns.

 

Well you see if it was not easy for criminals to buy guns ANYWHERE without a background it would make it just a little harder for criminals to get guns. Not impossible...just harder.

 

Here's my problem with anyone's expectations of a UBC being effective. First, in their 2010 report "Summary Of Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies", the DOJ made it very clear that a UBC is ineffective/unenforceable with full registration. That's just not going to happen. See Connecticut and New York for a forecast of compliance rates. Compliance from criminals would be zero.

Second, the current background checks, while making it "harder", don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. In the latest report on Brady Act effectiveness, the DOJ reported that in 2010, 54,000 prohibited persons including 34k felons, were denied a firearm through NICS background checks. 13 (13!) were convicted of the felony committed while trying to buy a gun. That left 54k+ felons free to pursue their goal of getting a gun through illegal means like straw purchases, theft and illegal street sales. None of these sources, which earlier FBI studies say account for over 80% of guns used in crimes, would be impacted at all by a UBC.

 

Again the goal is harm reduction not harm elimination. It may take a generation to fully see the effects of UBC in every state. And this is such a minor inconveinence. The sooner we start the better

 

Yeah, if we arrest people at the current rate that's one extra felon in jail a year. Some reduction. Laws that can't be adequately enforced, and a UBC certainly falls into that category, are laws that are just ignored.

 

Not true.

 

I wouldn't arrest them at all. It is a prevention tool

 

Does that not present a point of conflict with supposedly being an expert in the field of mental health?

This is a false statement.

Provided you are around for a significant amount of interaction, you will come to realize it is a true statement. You are addressing one who cannot be shaken, disturbed, angered, upset, enraged, or bothered. Matters pertaining to thoughts, feelings, and emotions are all irrelevant to discussion. Facts and logic are all that are relevant, facts and logic are all that is important. Everything else is fit to be discarded as nothing more than useless trash.

- - - Updated - - -

And since universal background checks cannot be enforced, they carry not weight and ultimately prevent nothing.

Which is at least one felony offense being committed.

Even minor inconveniences must still pass the standard of strict scrutiny. It must fulfill a compelling government interest, it must be narrowly tailored in how it furthers that interest, and it must be the least restrictive method possible of furthering that interest.

 

Actually buddhism is having a large influence on mental health at this point. Dialetical Behavior therapy is based on buddhist mindfulness. Mindfulness is found to have significant impacts on a wide variety of mental health conditions. Buddhist therapists are becoming much more common. You are welcome to believe what you want. Everyone on the planet feels anger. I have studied this at length and it is a personal passion of mine. But this is a distraction from this thread and I am not your therapist.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course lets run it all by SCOTUS. I have no problem with that

 

Except it is not. Violence can be committed just as easily without firearms. Bludgeoning someone to death with a hammer from the local hardware store is essentially impossible to stop from occurring.

Spending twenty five years in the field of psychological health, according to your own statements, you should realize that the desire, and the urge, to commit violence against others, exists independently of the availability of the implement, and does not simply cease to exist, or goes without address.

 

What has anger to do with Gun Control or Buddhist religion ?

 

Constitutionality is necessary but it isn't sufficient for a new law. It should be enforceable and effective, too.

 

It is far easier to use a gun from a distance than to use a hammer up close. I wan to make it as difficult as possible

- - - Updated - - -

I agree completely

 

Gun control is sure not effective as a Crime prevention measure.
Gun control actually encourages crime.

 

It was in respone to when he said he NEVER gets angry. I said EVERYONE gets angry sometimes....even the Dalai Lama. He famously said "I get angry on the inhale and happy on the exhale."

 

Do you support placing all males in "re-education camps" from age 15-29? Being detained away from the population of victims makes it about as difficult as possible to commit a violent crime.

 

I would not count that as a minor inconveinence but that is just me. Pol Pot might disagree. LOL

 

When did he visit Colorado?

- - - Updated - - -

They're free to go at any time, once the 14 year waiting period is over.

 

First and foremost, you did not actually refute the statement that, as someone with twenty five years worth of experience in the field of psychological health, you should know that the desire, and the urge, to commit violence against others, exists independently of the availability of the implement, and does not simply cease to exist, or goes without address. You should know full well that if someone is motivated to harm another, they are not going to allow the hypothetical lack of a firearm to get in their way.

Second, you claim you wish to make harming others as difficult as possible. However, in a wholly contradictory fashion, you have stated that you do not wish to undertake any proposal that may hypothetically lead to an increase in taxes. From these two statements one can accurately conclude that your desire to see a reduction in harm committed against others is not truly serious in nature, and does not wish to undertake effective approaches simply because they are considered expensive.

Is not the preventing of death worth any approach that may yield results, regardless of price? If it saves even one life, is it not worth any cost that may be incurred?

Or should we conclude that lives have a low monetary value? If saving lives is not worth an increase in taxes that must be paid as a result, does that mean the average life holds less value than a flat screen television or desktop computer?

 

Let me answer your questions. They present a very object relations world view by the way (all or nothing thinking) but that is just a personal comment.

The availability of a deadly weapon makes the use of that weapon much more common. Countries with the most guns have the most gun deaths. No one disputes this.

Let me correct myself. I wish to make harming someone as difficult as REASONABLY possible. We could save about 30,000 live a year by banning cars. I think that is a unreasonable approach. I only want reasonable gun approach. And we the people will decide what is reasonable

 

There are nearly five thousand posts that go to reinforce the validity of the claim; anger is not experienced on the part of myself. It is wholly irrelevant and serves no meaningful purpose that would warrant either its presence or use.

 

What you claim is impossible.....and I assure you I am an expert in this field

 

"We the people" generally don't know sh*te about guns, or gun laws, or law enforcement, making it impossible for them to come up with "reasonable" laws.

 

They still have the power of the vote....unless you want to take that away?